Renton 17576 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Ah Renton.... I see you've had to resort to the insults and drivel already. New record. Almost as funny as Smith's "managed investigation" comment - Fop is quite sure it will be. Where have I insulted you? I take it you haven't got tired of spouting utter drivel yet then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) I know, just think the notion of an institutionally racist anti-white police force is quite amusing. Not surprisingly you've missed the whole point as usual. It's not that the police are "anti-white" or whatever you seem to believe, it's that they are institutionally held back from policing targets equally. Some are "fair game" (as in this case) and others have to be done "sensitively". That results in a harsher reaction from the police for walking with your hands in your pockets in some cases, than hoying a load of metal fencing at the police/hitting them with metal poles in other cases. - that is institutional racism, whether you like it (or will ever admit it) or not. It's actually the opposite of the motivation that resulted in "institutional racism" in say the Lawrence case, but it's still the same end result of "institutional racism", even though the motivation is completely different. Edited April 8, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Ah Renton.... I see you've had to resort to the insults and drivel already. New record. Almost as funny as Smith's "managed investigation" comment - Fop is quite sure it will be. Where have I insulted you? I take it you haven't got tired of spouting utter drivel yet then? Fop may start when (if ever) you stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I have no respect whatsoever for the police but people calling this "manslaughter" are wrong imo. Hardly. Pretty much a direct link, just as much as happening to land wrongly bang your head and set off a terminal bleed. There's also the issue of equality of policing again (would they have done this to say a Tamil protester doing the same thing?). That's conjecture but unlikely to bear up to scrutiny imo. Agree about the 2nd bit though. A lot of the protestors were represenative of muslim groups etc, I doubt these were singled out for better treatement a la Fop's theory that the police are 'insitutionally racist' against white christian people. This is Fop's new uber agenda the daft twit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17576 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I know, just think the notion of an institutionally racist anti-white police force is quite amusing. Not surprisingly you've missed the whole point as usual. It's not that the police are "anti-white" or whatever you seem to believe, it's that they are institutionally held back from policing targets equally. Some are "fair game" (as in this case" and others have to be done "sensitively". That results in a harsher reaction from the police for walking with your hands in your pockets in some cases than hoying a load of metal fencing at the police/hitting them with metal poles in other cases. - that is institutional racism, whether you like it (or will ever admit it) or not. It's actually the opposite of the motivation that resulted in "institutional racism" in say the Lawrence case, but it's still the same end result of "institutional racism", even though the motivation is completely different. Right, you think the police are institutionally racist against white people, I got you the last time. That statement speaks for itself Fop, carry on spouting drivel for longer if you like though, it's mildly amusing. Only mildly though. Oh, and your formatting needs a bit more work, you've been letting down your italics a bit recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 I have no respect whatsoever for the police but people calling this "manslaughter" are wrong imo. Hardly. Pretty much a direct link, just as much as happening to land wrongly bang your head and set off a terminal bleed. There's also the issue of equality of policing again (would they have done this to say a Tamil protester doing the same thing?). That's conjecture but unlikely to bear up to scrutiny imo. Agree about the 2nd bit though. A lot of the protestors were represenative of muslim groups etc, I doubt these were singled out for better treatement a la Fop's theory that the police are 'insitutionally racist' against white christian people. This is Fop's new uber agenda the daft twit. What they did to that fella was wrong. But that they wouldn't have done it to that fella if he'd been someone else, is even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 I know, just think the notion of an institutionally racist anti-white police force is quite amusing. Not surprisingly you've missed the whole point as usual. It's not that the police are "anti-white" or whatever you seem to believe, it's that they are institutionally held back from policing targets equally. Some are "fair game" (as in this case" and others have to be done "sensitively". That results in a harsher reaction from the police for walking with your hands in your pockets in some cases than hoying a load of metal fencing at the police/hitting them with metal poles in other cases. - that is institutional racism, whether you like it (or will ever admit it) or not. It's actually the opposite of the motivation that resulted in "institutional racism" in say the Lawrence case, but it's still the same end result of "institutional racism", even though the motivation is completely different. Right, you think the police are institutionally racist against white people, I got you the last time. That statement speaks for itself Fop, carry on spouting drivel for longer if you like though, it's mildly amusing. Only mildly though. Oh, and your formatting needs a bit more work, you've been letting down your italics a bit recently. Police policy is institutionally racist against some groups and for others, in this context of demonstrations, yes. Without a doubt. How else do you explain why you can get this reaction for what he did? Yet get no reaction at all for hoying a metal fence or hitting a police officer with a pole? Please explain it by all means. (Fop awaits the deafening silence as you realise you can't without agreeing with Fop ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I have no respect whatsoever for the police but people calling this "manslaughter" are wrong imo. Hardly. Pretty much a direct link, just as much as happening to land wrongly bang your head and set off a terminal bleed. There's also the issue of equality of policing again (would they have done this to say a Tamil protester doing the same thing?). That's conjecture but unlikely to bear up to scrutiny imo. Agree about the 2nd bit though. A lot of the protestors were represenative of muslim groups etc, I doubt these were singled out for better treatement a la Fop's theory that the police are 'insitutionally racist' against white christian people. This is Fop's new uber agenda the daft twit. What they did to that fella was wrong. But that they wouldn't have done it to that fella if he'd been someone else, is even worse. I was gonna help you out in this thread today, but now you're making me choose sides between the generic stupidity at loose here and your unique stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. (as to your last point, sensible isn't always right, even if it is sensible. Right is right. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I know, just think the notion of an institutionally racist anti-white police force is quite amusing. Not surprisingly you've missed the whole point as usual. It's not that the police are "anti-white" or whatever you seem to believe, it's that they are institutionally held back from policing targets equally. Some are "fair game" (as in this case" and others have to be done "sensitively". That results in a harsher reaction from the police for walking with your hands in your pockets in some cases than hoying a load of metal fencing at the police/hitting them with metal poles in other cases. - that is institutional racism, whether you like it (or will ever admit it) or not. It's actually the opposite of the motivation that resulted in "institutional racism" in say the Lawrence case, but it's still the same end result of "institutional racism", even though the motivation is completely different. Right, you think the police are institutionally racist against white people, I got you the last time. That statement speaks for itself Fop, carry on spouting drivel for longer if you like though, it's mildly amusing. Only mildly though. Oh, and your formatting needs a bit more work, you've been letting down your italics a bit recently. Police policy is institutionally racist against some groups and for others, in this context of demonstrations, yes. Without a doubt. How else do you explain why you can get this reaction for what he did? Yet get no reaction at all for hoying a metal fence or hitting a police officer with a pole? Please explain it by all means. (Fop awaits the deafening silence as you realise you can't without agreeing with Fop ) That's a bit of an oversimplification though as well. The police are individuals reacting to difficult situations rather than robots. He may well be disciplined for this too. In any case I very much doubt that what the policeman did actually reflected police policy (i.e. in terms of how they would like to see demonstrators treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17576 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. (as to your last point, sensible isn't always right, even if it is sensible. Right is right. ) As to my last point, the world isn't that simple. Sometimes sensible is better than right. If one can define what right is all the time, which one can't. That's a general point rather than this where the policeman was in the wrong imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 I know, just think the notion of an institutionally racist anti-white police force is quite amusing. Not surprisingly you've missed the whole point as usual. It's not that the police are "anti-white" or whatever you seem to believe, it's that they are institutionally held back from policing targets equally. Some are "fair game" (as in this case" and others have to be done "sensitively". That results in a harsher reaction from the police for walking with your hands in your pockets in some cases than hoying a load of metal fencing at the police/hitting them with metal poles in other cases. - that is institutional racism, whether you like it (or will ever admit it) or not. It's actually the opposite of the motivation that resulted in "institutional racism" in say the Lawrence case, but it's still the same end result of "institutional racism", even though the motivation is completely different. Right, you think the police are institutionally racist against white people, I got you the last time. That statement speaks for itself Fop, carry on spouting drivel for longer if you like though, it's mildly amusing. Only mildly though. Oh, and your formatting needs a bit more work, you've been letting down your italics a bit recently. Police policy is institutionally racist against some groups and for others, in this context of demonstrations, yes. Without a doubt. How else do you explain why you can get this reaction for what he did? Yet get no reaction at all for hoying a metal fence or hitting a police officer with a pole? Please explain it by all means. (Fop awaits the deafening silence as you realise you can't without agreeing with Fop ) That's a bit of an oversimplification though as well. The police are individuals reacting to difficult situations rather than robots. He may well be disciplined for this too. In any case I very much doubt that what the policeman did actually reflected police policy (i.e. in terms of how they would like to see demonstrators treated. Yeah it is, but complex tends to get Renton even more confused. There's standing instructions and unofficial instructions about reactions and levels of reaction for each incident. Although in all honesty even at the level of the individual police officer it is still institutional racism/discrimination if they feel the can act differently because of the "target", or won't face a level of censure if they do. The (vastly oversimplified) issue is that equality is equality - it's a sword that has to cut both ways evenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3956 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 How does the "institutional racism" pov apply to the recipients of the worst policing of this type - football fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I have no respect whatsoever for the police but people calling this "manslaughter" are wrong imo. Hardly. Pretty much a direct link, just as much as happening to land wrongly bang your head and set off a terminal bleed. There's also the issue of equality of policing again (would they have done this to say a Tamil protester doing the same thing?). That's conjecture but unlikely to bear up to scrutiny imo. Agree about the 2nd bit though. A lot of the protestors were represenative of muslim groups etc, I doubt these were singled out for better treatement a la Fop's theory that the police are 'insitutionally racist' against white christian people. This is Fop's new uber agenda the daft twit. What they did to that fella was wrong. But that they wouldn't have done it to that fella if he'd been someone else, is even worse. I was gonna help you out in this thread today, but now you're making me choose sides between the generic stupidity at loose here and your unique stupidity. Do what you normally do and post your own particular brand tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. So you agree with Fop, you just think institutional racism/discrimination is "ok". Fair enough..... you're wrong , but that is what you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17576 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 How does the "institutional racism" pov apply to the recipients of the worst policing of this type - football fans. Well they're nearly all white, so that proves Fop's point I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. I don't understand why Fop can't see that. Policing policy is reviewed monthly and to some extent influenced by Whitehall/Govt sub-committees and the like. Secondly, if Fop (or Alex) are irritated that at long last non-white people are getting some kind of more sensitive police handling then that's just tough shit. Let's face it they have had a pretty bad ride and faced Police brutality and general ill treatment/prejudice for the last 30 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17576 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. So you agree with Fop, you just think institutional racism/discrimination is "ok". Fair enough..... you're wrong , but that is what you believe. I don't think all situations and demonstrations should be treated in the same way, that's naive at best. I don't see how that equates to the term 'institutional racism' though, but then again I don't think you have a clue what that even means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. I don't understand why Fop can't see that. Policing policy is reviewed monthly and to some extent influenced by Whitehall/Govt sub-committees and the like. Secondly, if Fop (or Alex) are irritated that at long last non-white people are getting some kind of more sensitive police handling then that's just tough shit. Let's face it they have had a pretty bad ride and faced Police brutality and general ill treatment/prejudice for the last 30 years or so. You must still be pissed off at the Tarquin jibe because there's no way my comments could be interpreted that way tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3956 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Secondly, if Fop (or Alex) are irritated that at long last non-white people are getting some kind of more sensitive police handling then that's just tough shit. Let's face it they have had a pretty bad ride and faced Police brutality and general ill treatment/prejudice for the last 30 years or so. My view is that if certain groups - like Muslims, countryside alliance protestors and other "nice" groups are treat in the same way as football fans have been treat for 30 years then the outrage may lead to changes across the board - if thats the kind of "equality" Fop is after then I agree while relishing the squeals of people I don't like in the meantime. (By relishing I'm obviously not talking about the blokes death). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. So you agree with Fop, you just think institutional racism/discrimination is "ok". Fair enough..... you're wrong , but that is what you believe. I don't think all situations and demonstrations should be treated in the same way, that's naive at best. I don't see how that equates to the term 'institutional racism' though, but then again I don't think you have a clue what that even means. Fop needs to check the IR meated out to Asians and Blacks in the 70's and 80's and then start his patented backtracking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. (as to your last point, sensible isn't always right, even if it is sensible. Right is right. ) As to my last point, the world isn't that simple. Sometimes sensible is better than right. If one can define what right is all the time, which one can't. That's a general point rather than this where the policeman was in the wrong imo. The problem with allowing too much grey in areas that are by their nature pretty much black and white (racist ), is that you lose the moral high ground. How can someone defuse say a BNP activists bollocks if what they are saying happens to be correct? "Well you're right, but there were special circumstances" just isn't an answer it's a confirmation. If the police are going to be especially tolerant in some circumstances (for whatever reason), the only non-discriminatory course of action is to treat every one else in the same way. Anything else is wrong and is still digging a hole for themselves, just maybe in the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Tbf Parky, it isn't. I agree with what he says (without the melodramatic polemic) about police treating different protests and so on differently. Whether they're correct in doing so at times is a different matter. They treat different situations differently, granted, and quite correct imo (and not in Fop's opinion, I appreciate), but as you say that is a different matter really. To equate this to 'institutional racism' is absurd though. The least Fop could do would be admit he's used a bad choice of words, but even that to him is to admit too much. Hence the wind up on my behalf. I don't understand why Fop can't see that. Policing policy is reviewed monthly and to some extent influenced by Whitehall/Govt sub-committees and the like. Secondly, if Fop (or Alex) are irritated that at long last non-white people are getting some kind of more sensitive police handling then that's just tough shit. Let's face it they have had a pretty bad ride and faced Police brutality and general ill treatment/prejudice for the last 30 years or so. You must still be pissed off at the Tarquin jibe because there's no way my comments could be interpreted that way tbh If that is the case I apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now